Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

For those of you who may not have seen it (there wasn't a lot of coverage), the RFI for what might eventually become the replacement for the F-22 came out last November. Keep in mind this is still a long way from an actual program.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... p;_cview=1

F-16.net Sponsor

I got to thinking the other day why we need to start a replacement NGATF then it hit me. We seem to be fielding far less fighters then in the 50-70s. This thing will have lived out a long enough life and the complexities involved demand you start the program at least a decade, if not more in advance. Factoring in ADF only, I wonder if the Raptor only has a decade or so left of near impunity (yeah, I know.). That is in the hands of stellar pilots and so on.

chrisrt wrote:

I got to thinking the other day why we need to start a replacement NGATF then it hit me. We seem to be fielding far less fighters then in the 50-70s. This thing will have lived out a long enough life and the complexities involved demand you start the program at least a decade, if not more in advance. Factoring in ADF only, I wonder if the Raptor only has a decade or so left of near impunity (yeah, I know.). That is in the hands of stellar pilots and so on.

One reason it takes us so long is no one is really willing to confront the upfront costs to start. Also, up until the mid '70s, the goal of testing was to, commensurate with safety, test out and explore the limits of what your craft could do. Since then the goal has been to reduce risk, a subtle but major difference.

aaam wrote:

One reason it takes us so long is no one is really willing to confront the upfront costs to start. Also, up until the mid '70s, the goal of testing was to, commensurate with safety, test out and explore the limits of what your craft could do. Since then the goal has been to reduce risk, a subtle but major difference.

Wow, good point aaam! Yet if the "brains" of the operation were trying to reduce cost otherwise known as risk, they have not been very successful.
Go back to performance gentlemen.

We should only need about 30 of the next generation to gain air superiority over the globe.

madrat wrote:

We should only need about 30 of the next generation to gain air superiority over the globe.

Because, if only due to historical trends, that's how many they'll end up making.

bruant328 wrote:

aaam wrote:

One reason it takes us so long is no one is really willing to confront the upfront costs to start. Also, up until the mid '70s, the goal of testing was to, commensurate with safety, test out and explore the limits of what your craft could do. Since then the goal has been to reduce risk, a subtle but major difference.

Wow, good point aaam! Yet if the "brains" of the operation were trying to reduce cost otherwise known as risk, they have not been very successful.
Go back to performance gentlemen.

Risk is not only cost, but in DC it's status and image. You're never to be perceived as less than 100% correct. Here's some simple examples: The first F-14A crashed on its second flight due to a failure in a hydraulic coupling. The response was we'd better fix those lines, but let's press on. By the 1980s things had changed. On one of the flights of the X-29, after all the test items had been accomplished, it was on its way back to base. It had been such a good flight, and the sky was so beautiful, that the pilot decided to just do one level roll (which the X-29 had done plenty of times) for the sheer joy of it, and then continued on back to base and landed. That roll was not on the cards of the test plan for that flight. The gov't ordered the pilot banned from the program and tried to get him fired. Things had changed.

The French traditionally go supersonic on the first flight of a new fighter design. Could you imagine that happening in the US today?

madrat wrote:

We should only need about 30 of the next generation to gain air superiority over the globe.

Just ask Robert Gates!! Rolling Eyes

Just the idea of a next gen should be enough!

awsome wrote:

Just the idea of a next gen should be enough!

An idea, properly written with good graphics, on high quality paper will guarantee US air dominance until the 49th century. Not to mention a graphics designer is way cheaper than an aeronautical engineer. Very Happy

Just force the engineers to design and force companies to supply the materials and construct them.

Just jokin' around.

If the F-22/35 took 15 years to IOC, and the notional 6th generation fighter has an IOC of 2030. We could expect a flying prototype in about 5 years, 2015. Given that Boeing has been boasting 6th gen. work and LM no doubt has its own ideas.

A multi-national colaberation would almost certainly be in the works, since no single single country can no longer mount such an effort that encompasses quality and affordability. Countries that do not attach themselves to this project, risk falling even further behind in aviation technologies.

It is possible the production stop on the F-22, was because work was underway on a future project. i.e. Pres. Carter killed the B-1A because of the promised B-2.

strykerxo wrote:

If the F-22/35 took 15 years to IOC, and the notional 6th generation fighter has an IOC of 2030. We could expect a flying prototype in about 5 years, 2015. Given that Boeing has been boasting 6th gen. work and LM no doubt has its own ideas.

A multi-national colaberation would almost certainly be in the works, since no single single country can no longer mount such an effort that encompasses quality and affordability. Countries that do not attach themselves to this project, risk falling even further behind in aviation technologies.

It is possible the production stop on the F-22, was because work was underway on a future project. i.e. Pres. Carter killed the B-1A because of the promised B-2.

More like the F-22 was dropped to prioritize resources for the f-35.

strykerxo wrote:

If the F-22/35 took 15 years to IOC, and the notional 6th generation fighter has an IOC of 2030. We could expect a flying prototype in about 5 years, 2015. Given that Boeing has been boasting 6th gen. work and LM no doubt has its own ideas.

A multi-national colaberation would almost certainly be in the works, since no single single country can no longer mount such an effort that encompasses quality and affordability. Countries that do not attach themselves to this project, risk falling even further behind in aviation technologies.

It is possible the production stop on the F-22, was because work was underway on a future project. i.e. Pres. Carter killed the B-1A because of the promised B-2.

F-22 took as long as it did partly because of the political climate of the 1990s.

Gates has been pretty open about why the F-22 was terminated. He and Congress felt that the US needed a multi-purpose strike aircraft more than it needed a pure air superiority fighter. Plus, the F-35 was further away in time, so coming up with the big money could be postponed until it was the next guy's problem. Because Congress had a hand in starting the program, the F-35 had more support on the Hill.

Carter did not kill the B-1A because of the B-2. The B-1 was killed in June of 1977 and any stealth bomber was a long ways away. As part of his election campaign in 1980, Carter disclosed that the US was working on developing stealth aircraft including something called an Advanced Technology Bomber, but what wold become the B-2 wasn't started until 1981, after Carter left office. In my personal opinion, had Carter been reelected, no such plane would have been brought into service.

Carter canceled the B-1 because in his 1976 campaign he had promised he would cancel it. While there is some indication that once he was in he may have had some (some) 2nd thoughts given the results from the program, his political supporters demanded that he follow through and that's what mattered,

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

F-22 replacement